5x22 Just action, being a hero. Was Angel justified...

[Happy]

Was Angel justifed in having Lorne shoot Lindsey?

That question seems a little vague. Define "justified".

Did he have the right to? No. Did he feel he was justified? Yes.

You need to keep in mind that this is completely in character for Angel. Angel did what he thought he had to do. That's what Angel does. He is a Champion... Angel is not a hero, that's Buffy role. Angel is an anti-hero. Questionable means are the anti-hero's shtick.

Angel isn't pure and true and filled with shinning light and happy little butterflies. He wears black not shinning armor. He isn't altruistic and never has been, so why would you expect him to be? Because the theme of the show is redemption? Angel himself told Faith in Orpheus that "people like us are never through paying" (or something to that effect). Angel will never be truly redeemed. He's never going to remove Angelus' taint he merely tries, on a day to day basis, to rise above it.

He's always going to have a darkness to him. His actions in the last few episodes were just examples of that darkness and that he hasn't finished walking the road to redemption and never truly will, so really, it fits both the character and the theme of the show.

The only thing you could possibly argue about would be that you disagree with his actions. Thing is, they are entirely consistent with the character. This isn't something new. It's like complaining that Giles in kind of stiff or that Buffy can get a little over emotional at times. Angel's darkness and willingness to compromise his ethics is a key part of the character and is one of the things that makes the character interesting. Personally, I wouldn't want him to become a toothy Galahad.

So in the end I'm fine with his actions overall. I don't agree with them but I understand them, and they fit with the character. If it had a come out of left field I'd be disappointed with it. As is, it works.

 

[WatcherWes]

Happy, I gotta disagree. Angel isn't an anti-hero, he's a hero. He may not be your typical square jawed do gooder, but he's still heroic.

 

[Happy]

Anti Hero (definition from Wikipedia) :

In literature and film, an anti-hero is a central or supporting character that has some of the personality flaws and ultimate fortune traditionally assigned to villains but nonetheless also have enough heroic qualities or intentions to gain the sympathy of readers. Anti-heroes can be awkward, obnoxious, passive, pitiful, or obtuse"”but they are always, in some fundamental way, flawed or failed heroes. In this use, the term tragic hero is sometimes used. Comic books also feature anti-heroes, also known as "dark heroes," who are characters fighting for the side of good, but either with some tragic flaw (such as a tormented past) or by using questionable means to reach their goals.

Angel is pretty much the text book definition on an anti-hero. It isn't that he isn't "heroic" it's that he's not a "hero". He isn't a four color poster boy for truth justice and the American way. He's a dark brooding guy with a shading past who is willing to bend his morals and use questionable means to "fight the good fight".

 

[WyrdDemonHunter]

Anti Hero (definition from Wikipedia) :
[stuff deleted]
Angel is pretty much the text book definition on an anti-hero. It isn't that he isn't "heroic" it's that he's not a "hero". He isn't a four color poster boy for truth justice and the American way. He's a dark brooding guy with a shading past who is willing to bend his morals and use questionable means to "fight the good fight".

As usual, you win. 🙂

About the "is Angel justified" question: I probably should have phrased it differently (something like: "do you agree with Angel's actions?" but then it wouldn't have been as much fun. 🙂 I think I may have unconsciously phrased the question poorly on purpose... that is if it's possible to do something both unconsciously and on purpose...

I have to say, I'm rather concerned by the number of people on the list who posted things like "yes he was justified". I think perhaps they need a revisiting with the phrase "the ends never justifies the means". They should also be aquainted with "The Prince", Nietche's notion of "supermen", different kinds of morality, and the confusion between justification and rationalization. Morality gets messy when people make it up as they go. 🙂

I may not post much more in this thread. For the record: so far I've most appreciated what you (Happy) and nerd4hire have had to say.

The main reasons I had a problem with what Angel did were:
1) because Lorne had a problem with it
2) because Lindsey may have been on a path of reform or semi-reform
3) because Angel tricked Lindsey in a very cruel way and the whole thing seemed like a classic move gangster hit
4) because, except for Lorne's reaction, Angel was never called to answer for any of this. See, most of the times when Angel does something questionable, he asked to answer for it. Typically, he doesn't have much to say about it, but he says something like "I did what I had to to", etc.

::EDIT:: I accidently posted this comment before I was done writing it, but that turns out to have been a blessing in disguise since the Buffy server briefly crashed (or at least it became unavailable to me and multiple page refresh attempts were unsuccessful) causing me to lose the edit I made before. As is usually the case, this time I will probably not recreate all the words I wrote before.

4 (continued))
Forcing the character to acknowlege when he/she does something that breaks with the "standard moralty" is important because otherwise such things might be ignored. I think that's bad--not just with a made-up character but with real life people as well. I don't expect the character to necessarily try to "justify" their action(s) nor do I always expect the character to be punished or even absolved. The simple acknowlegement that the action occured is what's important to me. This didn't happen with the Angel/Lindsey thing, and it irked me.

But back when I made the thread I hadn't thought all this out in quite so detailed a way. Now that I understand what it was about the Angel thing that was getting to me the most (i.e. #4), it's not so bad. Because I'm pretty sure the reason Angel wasn't called to answer for the Lindsey thing was that there simply wasn't enough time in the episode. After all, they already had to spend at least some of their episode time having Angel answer for yet another questionable action--Angel's murdering Drogan. 🙂 Too many murders there, Mr. anti-hero, slow down a bit. 🙂

 

[WatcherWes]

Angel is hardly a textbook example of an anti-hero. A great example of an anti-hero is The Punisher. Someone who accomplishes good, but only as an unintended side effect of their true cause, which is usually more selfish in nature. An Anti-hero is defined as "A main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage". Angel hardly lacks any heroic traits, he's just got some additional baggage with his past and his vampire status.

 

[nerd4hire]

It's interesting you know... I'm not sure there's a wrong answer to this question.

Angel has always kind of sat on the border between classic hero, and anti-hero.

If Watcher Wes chooses to see Angel as a classic hero he'll have no problem rummaging through the series and finding great examples to prove his point.

The same is true of Happy's Angel as anti-hero viewpoint. It's especially easy to see it in the latter part of Season 5.

Here's the problem though. When a classic hero relies on the motivations and reasoning that motivates the anti-hero, it creates the kind of moral ambiguity WyrdDemonHunter speaks of, where an action such as murder, which is generally thought of as wrong, can be written off as justifiable if it can be written off to something as morally simplistic as "greatest good to the greatest number".

Superman (or at least the Superman I remember) doesn't kill Lois Lane to save Europe.

Angel can do that kind of thing though, or not to it, depending on how he's feeling on a particular day. Why is that?

As usual I have a theory.

It has to do with this writer's trick Whedon writers have always used with varying degrees of success. It's particularly noticeable in Buffy S-7, and Angel S-5.

What they do is they'll borrow themes, styles, background motivations, and such from other genres, works, or media and patchwork them in as a kind of motivation for whatever they're doing at the time.

The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco for instance is classic film noir. The rules of film noir now apply, or not apply if they choose, because it's still Angel the television series. When they reveal the worm-monster in B-7's Beneath You, it's like they're nodding at the movie Tremors within an episode that is actually quite dark, and saying "remember this cheesy yet entertaining monster, be ready to laugh or cry".

It's almost like the little reference asterix on the written page where you have to scroll to the bottom to read the footnote, before you get the totality of what's being said.

You see it clearly in Not Fade Away, where the multiple assinations towards the end are such an obvious (to me anyway) nod to the Godfather, or the ending is so reminiscent of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

When this kind of thing happens it's almost like Whedon and Bell are saying "Reference of Godfather. Motivations of Michael Corleone now applicable here".

Under the rules of this style Angel can be a classic hero one episode, and a classic anti-hero the next.

It's up to the individual viewer to decide if this potentialy confusing approach works.

Personally, I loved Not Fade Away, and hated Girl in Question. In other words, in my opinion, sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

 

[Happy]

Angel is hardly a textbook example of an anti-hero. A great example of an anti-hero is The Punisher. Someone who accomplishes good, but only as an unintended side effect of their true cause, which is usually more selfish in nature. An Anti-hero is defined as "A main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage". Angel hardly lacks any heroic traits, he's just got some additional baggage with his past and his vampire status.

It really does depend on the definition of anti-hero that you go by (there are a few). Your very narrow definition isn't the accepted norm. The most widely accepted definition has the anti-hero possessed of "some" qualities generally attributed to villains, not lacking any and all qualities attributed to the heroic.

Also from Wikipedia, here's a list of a few different types of anti-heroes...

One type of anti-hero feels helpless, distrusts conventional values and is often unable to commit to any ideals, but they accept and often relish their status as outsiders. The cyberpunk genre makes extensive use of this character-type.

Another type of anti-hero is a character who constantly moves from one disappointment in their lives to the next, without end, with only occasional and fleeting successes. But they persist and even attain a form of heroic success by steadfastly never giving up or changing their goals. These characters often keep a deep-seated optimism that one day, they will succeed. But in the end they still meet the ultimate fate of a traditional villain, failure.

...

A third type of anti-hero is an individual with the same end goals as a traditional hero, but for whom the "ends justify the means." This character type is popular in comic books: for example by day Matt Murdock seeks to bring evil-doers to justice as a lawyer. But when the judicial system fails, he dons a mask and instead exacts revenge as Daredevil.

From Fact Index here's a list of antiheroes...

Drama

Adam in The Shape of Things by Neil LaBute

Mr. and Mrs. Bates in Brimstone and Treacle by Dennis Potter

Michael Cartts in Japes by Simon Gray

Donald in The Philanthropist by Christopher Hampton

Guy in My Night with Reg by Kevin Elyot

Felix Humble in Humble Boy by Charlotte Jones

Laurence in Abigail's Party by Mike Leigh

Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller

Archie Rice in The Entertainer by John Osborne

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by Tom Stoppard

Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett

Stephanie Washburn in The Eclipse by Joyce Carol Oates

Literature

Virgil Adams in Alice Adams by Booth Tarkington

Alex in A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess

Alice (as well as some other characters) in King Solomon's Carpet by Barbara Vine

Jacopo Belbo in Foucault's Pendulum by Umberto Eco

Martin Brock in 12 Step Fandango by Chris Haslam

Sydney Carton in A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

Charlie in The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky

Thomas Covenant in The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever by Stephen R. Donaldson

Mark Crawley (as well as some other characters) in A Vicious Circle by Amanda Craig

Jim Dixon in Lucky Jim, by Kingsley Amis

Elric of Melniboné in stories and novels by Michael Moorcock

Barnaby Gaitlin in A Patchwork Planet by Anne Tyler

Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Gollum (Sméagol) in The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien

Peter Jernigan in Jernigan by David Gates

Asa Leventhal in The Victim by Saul Bellow

Victor Mancini in Choke by Chuck Palahniuk

Walter Mitty in The Secret Life of Walter Mitty by James Thurber

Felix Nasmyth in Budding Prospects by T.C. Boyle

Alexander Portnoy in Portnoy's Complaint by Philip Roth

Marc Remillard in The Saga of Pliocene Exile by Julian May

Alan Sherwood in Altered States by Anita Brookner

Arthur Abdel Simpson in The Light of Day (filmed as Topkapi) and Dirty Story by Eric Ambler

Steerpike in the Gormenghast novels by Mervyn Peake

Stevens in The Remains of the Day by Kazuo Ishiguro

Luke Wakefield in Mr Wakefield's Crusade by Bernice Rubens

John Wheelwright in A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving

Smith in The Loneliness of a Long-Distance Runner by Alan Sillitoe

Yossarian in Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Holden Caulfield in Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger

Billy Fisher in Billy Liar by Keith Waterhouse

Poetry

Achilles in The Illiad by Homer

Gerontion in Gerontion by T.S. Eliot

Warren Harding in Two Poems About President Harding by James Wright

Henry in The Dream Songs by John Berryman

Prufrock in The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock by T.S. Eliot

Comic books

Batman (DC Comics)

Daredevil (Marvel Comics)

Hell Boy (Dark Horse)

The Incredible Hulk (Marvel)

Rayek in the comic book Elfquest by Wendy and Richard Pini

Spiderman (Marvel)

Wolverine (Marvel)

(As you can see, there are characters in that list which don't follow your strict definition, which really just outlines one type of anti-hero)

So people can be anti-heroes, for example, quite simply because, much as the traditional villain does, they suffer defeat on a regular basis. They need not lack all traditional heroic qualities, in fact, in order to be an anti-hero they must possess at least some heroic qualities. Marvel comics' Punisher in fact possess several qualities often associated with heroes. You've said that an anti-hero lacks such qualities as idealism and courage, and yet, Frank Castle actually has both.

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary"¦

Idealism"¦

the practice of forming ideals or living under their influence

Ideal"¦.

an ultimate object or aim of endeavor

Frank Castle has an ideal. He fights for a world without criminals, and therefore no crime. A world safe for families, like the one he once had.

Courage"¦

mean mental or moral strength to resist opposition, danger, or hardship. Courage implies firmness of mind and will in the face of danger or extreme difficulty

The Punisher puts himself in harms way on a regular basis to up hold his ideals. He faces great odds, and does so of his own volition. He is often outnumbered and outgunned in his war against crime, and yet he persists. It is hard to deny that he does possess courage.

Someone who accomplishes good, but only as an unintended side effect of their true cause, which is usually more selfish in nature.

That's a good sign of an anti-hero, but not a hard and fast rule. Regardless, you could file Angel under such a heading as easily as you could The Punisher. Angel fights the good fight as penance, he seeks redemption, he also for most of the show was after his reward, his Shanshu. The Punisher fights his own "good fight" against the forces of "evil" to make the world a safer place but he also fights for revenge. Batman (also an anti-hero) is similar to the two of them in this regard. All of them fight a simialr war against darkness, but all of them also have ulterior motives for doing so.

Angel does indeed qualify as anti-hero. He is a character with qualities associated with both the heroes and the villians. He fights for a noble goal using questionable methods. His goal will benefit society, but also fights for his own personal reasons. Angel fits the anto-hero label quite nicely in fact.

Superman (or at least the Superman I remember) doesn't kill Lois Lane to save Europe.

Angel can do that kind of thing though"¦

Ah, but Angel isn't Superman. Superman is the hero, Apollo to Batman's Dionysus. In the Buffyverse Buffy is the Apollonian hero, while Angel is the Dionysian anti-hero.

 

[nerd4hire]

Well yeah, but that's my point. I actually agree with you. It's easy to see Angel as anti-hero. Personally, he feels truest to me, when i view him as anti-hero

I'm just saying if I wanted to, I could visit Wikipedia, find a definiton of hero and give you examples of when Angel met that definition I'm confident I could do it.

Remember that bit, something like, "we live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be"? Those are the words of a classic hero.

My only point was that sometimes the writers flip-flop as to exactly how dark they want their champion. This creates confusion.

Viewed as a gestalt though, I agree with you completely; Angel's behaviour in Not Fade Away is consistent with the way you would expect him at the core to behave, and he behaves in the anti-hero mold.

 

[Happy]

Well yeah, but that's my point. I actually agree with you. It's easy to see Angel as anti-hero. Personally, he feels truest to me, when i view him as anti-hero

I kind of got that impression. The thing is, you also suggest that he can be viewed as a traditional hero, and I just don't think that's the case taking into account the definition for an anti-hero that I've given.

I'm just saying if I wanted to, I could visit Wikipedia, find a definiton of hero and give you examples of when Angel met that definition I'm confident I could do it.

Remember that bit, something like, "we live as though the world were as it should be, to show it what it can be"? Those are the words of a classic hero.

If you accept the idea of an anti-hero as being a "hero" with qualities often associated with a traditional "villain", then Angel can never truly be a "true hero". He can in fact never be anything other than an anti-hero (or a villain I suppose should he chose to take a trip down to the dark side).

You can point to examples of Angel showing himself to be heroic (which isn't hard) or possessed of heroic qualities, but that just lends him the 'hero part of his anti-hero status, it doesn't make him a hero. Even at his best the taint is there. Orpheus shows us that Angelus is always just below the surface. He always has a demon inside him, and that demon is always tempting him, its impulses are always there. Angel has those impulses, impulses which would be qualities associated with a villain and not a hero. So even at his best, even if he lived a life which would earn a man sainthood, he would still be doomed to anti-hero status by the simple fact that he is a vampire with a soul and has a demon within him.

My only point was that sometimes the writers flip-flop as to exactly how dark they want their champion.

I wouldn't say they flip-flop. That term especially would seem to indicate a certain flippancy to the way they handle the character. I think generally, we've seen Angel handled consistently. Does he act consistently throughout the show? No, but he really shouldn't. He isn't the same character he in season two that he was in season one. He's grown as character over the years and I think he actions have followed that growth. So although his actions may not have been consistent in and of themselves, they've been consistent with the character.

 

[WatcherWes]

that list of anti-heroes is completely whacked. Batman, Spider-Man and Daredevil as anti-heroes? hardly. Spider-Man sets the gold standards for what a hero should strive to be. Punisher doesn't fight for a world without crime. Punisher fights cause he's insane and hates criminals. He doesn't give a damn about the world.

 

[nerd4hire]

I wouldn't say they flip-flop. That term especially would seem to indicate a certain flippancy to the way they handle the character.

Flippancy: n - see Girl in Question. 🙂

 

[Happy]

Flippancy, n - see Girl in Question.

I disagree. I think that was entirely in character for Angel. Think back to when he showed up on BtVS to give Buffy the amulet. He acted the exact same way, like a jealous juvenile twit. He also acted similarly when it came to Buffy/Riley. Spike was the same way.

You seem to be missing the point. Girl in Question was about Spike and Angel growing up and moving past that.

Carl Jung... masks... it makes sense.

that list of anti-heroes is completely whacked. Batman, Spider-Man and Daredevil as anti-heroes? hardly. Spider-Man sets the gold standards for what a hero should strive to be. Punisher doesn't fight for a world without crime. Punisher fights cause he's insane and hates criminals. He doesn't give a damn about the world.

Spider-man does qualify, though he isn't in my opinion, a spectacular example. He has several personality flaws. Keep in mind that as my post pointed out there are several different types of anti-heroes. Among one of the types which your narrow definition doesn't account for is this...

Another type of anti-hero is a character who constantly moves from one disappointment in their lives to the next, without end, with only occasional and fleeting successes. But they persist and even attain a form of heroic success by steadfastly never giving up or changing their goals. These characters often keep a deep-seated optimism that one day, they will succeed. But in the end they still meet the ultimate fate of a traditional villain, failure.

Now, you may not think that applies to Spider-man, but it does. Consider that Spider-man's other half is Peter Parker. The boy's life has been one tragedy after another, one disappointment to the next, and whenever he does get what he wants it's there for a few fleeting moments before it's gone. Yet he still perseveres, trying to live as Spider-man and as Parker, even though his crime fighting keeps ruining his life.

Batman and Daredevil qualify as well. The bare bones definition for an anti-hero is that the character possess "some of the personality flaws and ultimate fortune traditionally assigned to villains" and "also have enough heroic qualities or intentions to gain the sympathy of readers". Both Batman and Daredevil have character flaws up the whazoo. Obsession, depression, paranoia, megalomania, recklessness, fears of commitment and rejection. These aren't stable "heroes".

 

[WatcherWes]

Spider-Man is in no way, shape or form an anti-hero. Any definition of anti-hero that he fits is completely erroneous.

 

[Happy]

Spider-Man is in no way, shape or form an anti-hero. Any definition of anti-hero that he fits is completely erroneous.

I personally wouldn't classify him as such, but I can see how someone would by the definition of anti-hero.

It's not my definition, and it's not my list, I just quoted them. However, the basic definition I do agree with. I can follow from a logical stand point how it branches out and touches other areas allowing for characters that might not seem like anti-heroes to be classified as such. Although I wouldn't say that Spider-man is one, I can see why they would classify him as such. I don't think he's a wonderful example of the traditional anti-hero, but he does nicely follow the guidelines of one variety.

The problem with Spider-man in this scenario, is that it really isn't Spider-man who is the anti-hero. Spider-man, as a separate entity is a hero. It's Peter Parker, his alter ego, who is an anti-hero. Not the brooding "dark avenger" type, but the more literary version. A character who is the protagonist of a story, yet with features and flaws seen more often in antagonist. With Spidey you have to keep in mind that in arts the term "hero" doesn't mean "costumed do-gooder" it means the main character. The "anti-hero" possesses properties which are generally in the main character's opposite... the antagonist. While the antagonist may be a "bad guy" who wears a black hat and likes to do bad deeds, that isn't always (or even really often) the case. It's these "non-villain" antagonists which Spider-man has traits which mirror, not Doc Doom or the Red Skull.

 

[LadyLavinia]

Was Angel justifed in having Lorne shoot Lindsey?

In one scene in Not Fade Away, Lindsey says to Eve, "As long as I'm fightin' on [Angel's] side, he'll play me fair." We know that Lindsey actually meant what he was saying because he was talking to his SO.

So. Lorne shoots Lindsey. This means Angel, in effect, used both Lindsey and Lorne like pawns. He used Lindsey to kill off the demons, then he had Lorne kill off Lindsey. Rather despicable one might say, certainly not a heroic, championish thing to do. Oh and let's not forget when Angel drank Drogan.

Let's go ahead and argue like hell over this because, well, what else are we going to do?

------
Follow up:
To increase the number of things to argue about: the episode seems to leave it slightly ambiguous as to whether Angel really sent Lorne to specifically kill Lindsey. I think Angel did and I have some lines/quotes to support that. However, I'm open to debate on this point as well if anyone wants to.

I believe that Buffy had hit the target when she told Giles in BtVS's "First Date" (7.14): you can't use evil to fight evil.

 

[XAngelusX]

I've always disagreed with that statement.

 

[Fat Elvis 007]

I actualy agreed with the torture of Iraqi prisoners but what the hey

You make me sick.

In the Marvel Universe, Spider-Man is viewed by the general public as an anti-hero. He keeps going out and doing what he does because it's right, even though everybody thinks he is the bad guy. So really, both sides of the Peter/Spidey could be seen as anti-heroes. WatcherWes, instead of having the attitude of, "Spider-Man is not an anti-hero because I say so," why don't you actually find a reasonable argument to support your opinion like Happy did? You may not subscribe to that definition of an anti-hero, but that is one definition.

N4H, your theory about Lorne seeing into Lindsey's future makes sense, but this should have been explained on the show. If this was not Joss's intention, then no, Angel was not justified because he did not know whether or not Lindsey was redeemable.

 

[WyrdDemonHunter]

check out my tangled sentences with too many commas! 🙂

That list of anti-heroes was interesting. There were at least several characters on there that I wouldn't have thought of as anti-heroes. Obviously, this just goes to your point, Happy, that there's more than one definition of `anti-hero'. Of course, that's slightly annoying because it makes the term less useful.

I like what you say, nerd4hire. Happy, I'll give you that that Joss and co. probably don't truly flip-flop their characters, at least not much. I do feel however that there have been some occasions in which some dramatic license was taken with the characters because it's what would make the story work best. ...

The Girl In Question might be an example of this, but, to me, personally, Angel and Spike did not seem as out of charcter as they did to many other people so, for me, that's not such a great example. But whether Angel and Spike were in or out of character that episode, I think most all would agree that that was definitely not the way we're used to seeing Angel and Spike behave, at least not for a full episode.

 

[WatcherWes]

Fat Elvis, damn near every spider-man appearance supports his being a true hero. Far too many comics to list. Let's use the Spider-Man movie. He's concerned with others (saving the boyscouts on the bridge). self sacrificing (turning down MJ at the end of the movie) and altruistic (his stopping of multiple evil doers, including the Green Goblin and his saving of several people, like the baby in the fire and the couple at the world unity fair who were about to be crushed by debris). And using public perception to describe a character is a very dumb thing. The Daily Bugle may proclaim that Spider-Man is a scumbag, but we that's not the case.

 

[Fat Elvis 007]

Fat Elvis, damn near every spider-man appearance supports his being a true hero. Far too many comics to list.

And a few support him being an anti-hero. I myself don't consider him one, but he does possess some traits of an anti-hero.